* Now talking on ##secretsecret123
<Wolfy87> So stealthy.
<mrout> Sooooo stealthy.
* ChemicalRascal (~ChemicaRa@184.108.40.206) has joined ##secretsecret123
<Wolfy87> 3/5 or so. Not bad.
<mrout> Secret secret indeed.
<mrout> Not bad at all.
<Wolfy87> Are we really expecting anyone else?
<ChemicalRascal> DarkSpartan, Terry indicated that they were able to make the time, I think.
<ChemicalRascal> Heck, that's why it's so early, right?
<Wolfy87> We'll give it a bit then.
<ChemicalRascal> "Hmm." - Wolfy87
<Wolfy87> Quote of the year. 10/10.
<ChemicalRascal> Pretty much. He says some real words, that person.
<mrout> Everyone here?
<ChemicalRascal> I am, more or less.
<Wolfy87> I guess so.
<mrout> You know what?
<mrout> If you don't turn up, you've forfeited your say.
<mrout> Let's get started
<ChemicalRascal> Pretty much. We need to get this damn document done.
<mrout> Okay, let's start.
<mrout> ChemicalRascal: you start.
<ChemicalRascal> Jeez, thanks.
<Wolfy87> So, we need a gdoc right?
<mrout> Why would we?
<Wolfy87> Ah, good point!
<ChemicalRascal> Okay, so... in the ideal of everyone being present and so forth, I had planned to start off by having a quick discussion to clarify the exact role of Design Lead, bounce ideas off Shane and get an exact definition of Design's scope. Of course, that can't happen, so I'll state this instead:
<ChemicalRascal> So far, I've been operating under the assumption that Design Lead operates as the overall creative control and vision of the project. The things that I will say in this meeting will likely be said under this assumption.
<ChemicalRascal> Hopefully nobody will accuse me of overstepping scope or anything now when they look through the logs.
<Wolfy87> Sounds good.
<mrout> Yep, sounds good.
<ChemicalRascal> Cool cool.
<ChemicalRascal> Now, in terms of the wiki or a gdoc - Do we just want to discuss things/have me rantily specify things in the channel and then formally write it up later?
<Wolfy87> That sounds like the most sane route.
<mrout> I'd say it'd be easier if someone kept notes perhaps?
<Wolfy87> Find problem, discuss, write outcome.
<mrout> or can we trust the IRC backlog to keep notes?
<ChemicalRascal> Well, I'm sure our clients all log stuff.
<Wolfy87> Well, it's not logged by WolfLogger.
<Wolfy87> We can save it though.
<mrout> We don't even need to save it.
<mrout> After all, once we've written it up, we don't need the logs.
<Wolfy87> May as well save it. Just in case someone asks what the rational behind something was.
<Wolfy87> But I digress, let's start with a topic.
<ChemicalRascal> Eh, the others will probably want to see the logs. I know you said they're late and hence voice is void, but anyway.
<Wolfy87> And let's aim for a fast blanket covering of as much as we can.
<ChemicalRascal> Right. So. Overall game goals.
<Wolfy87> Oof. Big one.
<ChemicalRascal> It seems to me that we essentially plan to implement what we felt 0x10c was to be. For me, that means we're looking at the following:
<ChemicalRascal> Well, a thumb-nail sketch.
<mrout> The question is: "What did we feel 0x10c was to be?"
<ChemicalRascal> - An open science-fiction sandbox,
<Wolfy87> I'm not sure if notch even had a direction yet. It was just the prospect of an open world.
<Wolfy87> He seemed to be following his Minecraft style again.
<ChemicalRascal> Urgh, bluh. My mind's all over the place.
<Wolfy87> Deep, complex. Hoard things and make the most impressive anything.
<ChemicalRascal> But yes, essentially it seems to me that the overall goal of Trillek is to be an open, scifi sandbox with a primary Multiplayer focus.
<Wolfy87> We let players play in the sandbox. Leave restrictions and game modes to mods?
<Wolfy87> Basic aim right now is sandbox.
<ChemicalRascal> Strong focus on the setting of space and spaceflight, with the player's primary environment being their own ship.
<ChemicalRascal> To put it in a thumbnail sketch, that's what I'd say we're shooting for.
<ChemicalRascal> Roughly. Yeah?
<Wolfy87> Sounds about right.
<Wolfy87> It's still very open right now and will probably be defined more as we go along.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, exactly.
<ChemicalRascal> To me, that multiplayer focus hinges on the game focusing on strong communities, either supporting existing ones or forming new ones, thanks to an almost exclusive player-to-player focus in terms of interaction.
<ChemicalRascal> To me at least, it seems we want players to be focused pretty much exclusively on each other.
<ChemicalRascal> I'm gonna assume that the silence is nodding of heads. To achieve this, it seems to me that the sort of universe state before the players have their way with it should be one of a relative clean, prestine nature.
<ChemicalRascal> So as to not distract from those player-player interactions.
<ChemicalRascal> I mean, if the player has a choice between doing XYZ off in the world somewhere, or doing something decently interesting with another player, they should be picking the latter choice.
<ChemicalRascal> Decent so far?
<ChemicalRascal> ... Anybody?
<Wolfy87> It's all sounding great.
<Wolfy87> Sorry, I keep alt-tabbing...
<ChemicalRascal> Eh, 'sokay.
<mrout> I keep alt-tabbing too
<mrout> But yeah, I can agree with that. I'm not sure we should be incentivising group play absolutely over soloing, though.
<ChemicalRascal> Cool. So, as a result of that, it seems that we want a very NPC-light experience. Not to say that we shouldn't have mobs and so on, but things like cities and bleh should be out. Perhaps there's room and need for a minor few, depending on how we implement things, but the players shouldn't be, say, forming hubs around NPC locations or anything.
<ChemicalRascal> mrout: I assume you mean soloing as in going off on one's lonesome, to some extent "against" other players? Or do you mean the potential of a single player mode?
<mrout> Yeah, that's what I mean by soloing
<ChemicalRascal> Ah. Well, I totally see that sort of thing as interacting with other players. I mean, you're not on their side, but they're your primary threat, or goal if you're doing lone-wolf piracy or somesuch.
<mrout> I think it's perfectly fine for players to play on their own on a MP server.
<Wolfy87> It's all about interaction.
<Wolfy87> And trust.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, true. I'm not sure if we could really make that fun, unless we're talking about a player who enjoys that sort of survivalesque experience and such.
<ChemicalRascal> Like, the hermit experience.
<Wolfy87> Minecraft is enjoyed, and it's a similar technique.
<mrout> Well that's kind of the point of the game, isn't it. It's like Minecraft, in a way. You're building up your ship, doing what you find fun, etc.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, exactly.
<Wolfy87> The players make the game.
<mrout> Absolutely, yeah.
<ChemicalRascal> In a slight, unfortunate tangent, though, I'm not sure how well a story could be supported. Now, I'd say that we don't need a (heavy) story for that sort of gameplay, but I'm certainly sure that most of what Writing has come up with this far doesn't really fit with that idea.
<ChemicalRascal> I know you guys aren't Writing, but I feel I should state that a lot of what I've seen from them thus far seems to be base on the assumption of an NPC-heavy experience.
<mrout> In the same way that Sound wouldn't really planning for a game without sound, I doubt writing will be planning for a game without writing.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, true. I'm sure there's a place in the game for elements of story and such, of course.
<ChemicalRascal> The game is going to need some sort of backstory, though it will probably be very light, and needs the player to be arriving fresh in a similarly fresh galaxy.
<mrout> More in lore/backstory than 'quests' or missions or anything, though.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, lore.
<Wolfy87> The whole game will be an open world where the player isn't really forced to do anything.
<ChemicalRascal> There was also the idea of a single-player mode that would be a lot more plot-heavy - I'm not sure if it's feasible, and it sure can't be done until Multiplayer is pretty much done due to $REASONS, so while Writing might be somewhat inactive for some time, if we decide that's an appropriate avenue to go down they'll be able to sink their metaphorical teeth into that.
<ChemicalRascal> I know that sounds like I'm throwing them a bone or something, it's not meant to come across like that. But eh, the more clinical point of it stands.
<mrout> I understand what you mean, yeah.
<Wolfy87> So I think we're fairly certain on the general outline of the game.
<Wolfy87> Very open, go nuts.
<ChemicalRascal> Cool. Anyway, yeah, right.
<Wolfy87> We can refine and restrict later.
<Wolfy87> Shall we discuss ships as entities? Maybe building?
<ChemicalRascal> To further dive into specific things I'd like to see on the "sandbox front", players should be able to shape and control large elements of their experience.
<ChemicalRascal> Wolfy87: Great minds, sir.
<Wolfy87> The biggest thing that will influence this: Voxels?
<mrout> Voxels just aren't mature enough.
<mrout> I've not seen a voxel game that didn't look somewhat blocky
<Wolfy87> True. Then do we take a modular approach?
<ChemicalRascal> Honestly, I doubt the level of customisation and such can be done with meshes.
<Wolfy87> Any lack of content can be modded in.
<Wolfy87> So add wings, engines etc.
<ChemicalRascal> See, I would rather not... Yeah, but players shouldn't have to do that.
<Wolfy87> A simplified version of KSP.
<mrout> ChemicalRascal: why do you say that
<mrout> No, an un-simplified version of KSP
<Wolfy87> I just meant limited hard points.
<mrout> KSP is *really* simplified. You just drag things together to certain points and they stick.
<ChemicalRascal> What I'd prefer to see in the game is a very... Ergh, words fail me.
<Wolfy87> ChemicalRascal: Try, what is it?
<mrout> The things you're dragging together are very... solid? Dunno the word to describe it.
<ChemicalRascal> I'd like to see players be able to define their ships (and buildings and whatever) from the ground up.
<mrout> They're very much self-contained.
<Wolfy87> ChemicalRascal: Like, from nothing?
<ChemicalRascal> Be entirely unrestricted in that front.
<mrout> Define "from the ground up"
<mrout> To the millimetre?
<Wolfy87> If we used some sort of mesh, you going basically have sliders to define sharpness of edges etc.
<ChemicalRascal> Wolfy87: Yeah, to some degree. It should be not restricted to pre-made walls or segments and so on.
<Wolfy87> You'd end up with styles, like in eve.
<mrout> I'd actually prefer if it were, ChemicalRascal.
<mrout> I think it'd be better if ships were all of a similar style, but weren't identical.
<Wolfy87> Then a few base parts that you apply modifiers to might work well.
<Wolfy87> Filters, if you will.
<ChemicalRascal> I'm not sure if that would be better, though. I'd much rather be able to create my own style than be limited to what the developer intends.
<mrout> Having really ridiculously sleek things like http://spaceships.30doradus.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=352&g2_serialNumber=2 and ships like http://www.sg-operations.com/Images/Daedalus_in_orbit.jpg would be... weird
<ChemicalRascal> I'd much rather the player feel that their ship is *their ship*, rather than an arrangement of the same walls that everyone uses.
<ChemicalRascal> Eh, some people like that style.
<ChemicalRascal> I mean, I think it looks derpy as fuck, don't get me wrong.
<mrout> Like what style? Mismatched shit?
<Wolfy87> Does that mean we have to use some form of voxels then?
<ChemicalRascal> Not mismatched stuff, but the sleek... Oh, there were two links.
<mrout> Having BOTH in the same world would be strange, to me.
<Wolfy87> How do we allow users to build then?
<ChemicalRascal> It would look a little odd, but I doubt that any one player would create two ships of such distinct styles. Furthermore, the style of a player's ship would allow for easy identification and so on.
<mrout> I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "In the Trillek universe, we have a particular aesthetic"
<ChemicalRascal> You know, you see Cocky McShowoff in his silver thing, you know it's him. You see someone else in a more utillitarian thing, you know it's that guy. You recognise the ships.
<mrout> Every other game I can think of has a unified aesthetic, for example.
<ChemicalRascal> Well, I don't think those are sandboxes.
<mrout> Being a sandbox doesn't necessarily mean the game should be a muddled mess of artistic styles.
<ChemicalRascal> No, of course not. But if the player wants to define themselves differently to how another player wants to, I don't think we should stop them.
<mrout> We're not. We're restricting the ways in which they can. Big difference.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, we're restricting them from defining their own style.
<mrout> No more than every other game.
<ChemicalRascal> We're either locking them into utillitarian, or sleeky or whatever. It'll certainly piss of players who want the other.
<mrout> They're free to replace all that with a different style, after all.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, but other games don't focus on the player building their own ship.
<ChemicalRascal> What do you mean by replace?
<mrout> Heck, we could even provide them as different style groups, to be turned on or off at the server operator's pleasure.
<mrout> Well if we don't provide (say) sleek, only utilitarian, they can provide sleek themselves.
<ChemicalRascal> Eh... I'd so much rather it be part of the vanilla experience.
<mrout> It can be, don't get me wrong. But I don't think players should be building their ships from the lowest level.
<Wolfy87> It may be a tad overwhelming.
<Wolfy87> Unless we provide a few bases.
<Wolfy87> Base ships*
<Wolfy87> That you can work off of.
<ChemicalRascal> Wolfy87: That's true. Players shouldn't have to design ships, a library of standards could be provided.
<mrout> And when you said "other games don't focus on the player building their own ship", they certainly focus on the player building something.
<mrout> Like in D&D. You pick from various classes, then customise your character further. It's still your character.
<Wolfy87> I can definitely agree with that.
<mrout> But it's not "Okay, now design 500 spells to go in your spell list"
<Wolfy87> The ship is your character though. Your player is just an avatar of you.
<mrout> In the sense of being the thing you customise it is IMO yeah.
<ChemicalRascal> To that extent, though, DnD doesn't expressly forbid you from adventuring with a feather boa and 500 self-designed spells, assuming the DM permits it.
<ChemicalRascal> It'd be some work doing, but there's nothing stoping you from creating 500 spells. I feel ship design should be similar.
<ChemicalRascal> Now, of course, like DnD we can provide a flavour.
<mrout> But crucially, it doesn't have a "spell designing rules" section.
<Wolfy87> So, ship building. How? The underlying system?
<Wolfy87> We know we want customisation, possibly with a few base models.
<ChemicalRascal> Stock ships, non-designed parts like the DCPU can have an aesthetic that can influence the player. But onwards a bit.
<Wolfy87> We could have a default shuttle. And everyone works from there.
<Wolfy87> Very basic, a blank canvas.
<mrout> We're not expressing forbidding anyone either! Just like not having "spell design rules", we won't have a "build your ship from the ground up" feature, but it'll still be possible, just not within the game.
<mrout> Can we actually decide this without deciding how low level we want customisation to be?
<ChemicalRascal> Sure. I don't feel that ship design should be done on a Minecraft-eque block-by-block system. We're talking about things that are going to be too complex for that, too time consuming to do. Instead, I would envision the player would work with an almost StetchUp like design system, though of course something more to the aesthetics of the game and such.
<ChemicalRascal> mrout: I doubt it.
<ChemicalRascal> I say SketchUp as an example, of course, of an intuitive 3D content creation systme.
<mrout> I'd prefer if they 'dragged together' ship components.
<Wolfy87> Allow both.
<Wolfy87> Create components or ships.
<ChemicalRascal> I feel the player should be dragging out arbitary rooms, walls, saying Blam this surface is a floor, wall, ceilling.
<mrout> I don't think the components should be voxels.
<ChemicalRascal> Window, what-have-you.
<mrout> That makes it hard to allow players to create components ingame.
<ChemicalRascal> I don't think we should be too concerned about one technology or the other. If we can work out what level of customisation we desire, we can decide which tech fits.
<mrout> The technology gives an aesthetic, though. I can't think of a voxel game that isn't somewhat blocky.
<ChemicalRascal> Do you mean blocky or do you mean cubic?
<ChemicalRascal> So... hard-edged, strait lines and so forth?
<mrout> No, I'll find a picture to explain one se
<mrout> (btw, it doesn't help that a regular cubic honeycomb is the only regular uniform honeycomb)
<mrout> I'll see if I can find it on the forums
<mrout> here's an example I was thinking of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3SnUx_J124
<mrout> look, even though it's not minecraft level of blockiness, it's still very blocky
<ChemicalRascal> I'm watching...
<ChemicalRascal> I honestly don't see the problem. I mean, the track was smooth, but the player won't be designing or building natural environments. In terms of the items and so on, it all seemed to be very close to what I'd expect even from perhaps reality - Smooth lines, flat surfaces, what humanity is good at manufacturing.
<mrout> ... what
<ChemicalRascal> We watched the same video, right?
<ChemicalRascal> It just didn't seem to me that the blockyness was an issue.
<mrout> does that look smooth to you? Sure, it's all smoothed by the engine, but it's still fundamentally very blocky - straight lines everywhere
<Wolfy87> I like the mirroring at least.
<ChemicalRascal> Eh, a problem of poor lighting and material choice. And yeah, that looks like an entirely reasonable thing, because humanity tends to like building strait lines 'n shit.
<ChemicalRascal> Now, it'd be worth seeing if we could create a voxel system capable of handling smooth, curved surfaces.
<mrout> It's not the poor lighting or the material choice.
<mrout> It's clear that the restrictions of using voxels lead to everything being on a grid.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, I mistook what your initial concern was. But yeah, that's the nature of the beast. I doubt players will be overly concerned, because they are gonna want straight lines and such anyway.
<mrout> Lol, what about when they don't want straight lines? Like say... all the time?
<mrout> wings, for example
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, but what about when they want a wing that is ever so slightly different from the wings we provide them?
<ChemicalRascal> And let's say this player isn't an ace on Blender.
<ChemicalRascal> Like the majority won't be.
<mrout> Then they scale it a bit?
<mrout> They skew, scale, rotate and move it
<ChemicalRascal> Let's assume this isn't a matter of scalling. Like, say, they want to put a notch in it for a gun.
<Wolfy87> If we are using a malleable mesh, why can't we allow both? Voxels with a smoothing pass or fine control with a mesh?
<ChemicalRascal> If a malleable mesh would achieve that, it'd be worth investigating.
<mrout> The tradeoff is that it's not as easily customisable. But it doesn't suffer from the problem that there's a minimum scale to voxels.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, it doesn't suffer that there's a minimum scale. But there's a maximum of customisability, and I'd wager you'd hit that first.
<mrout> I don't agree. There isn't a maximum of customisability.
<mrout> Because Blender exists.
<mrout> It's not too hard to make really small modifications to 3d models
<mrout> I've done it myself.
<mrout> Making models from scratch is hard, I'm terrible at that.
<mrout> But it's not hard to open up a model, move a few vertices around a bit, then export it again.
<ChemicalRascal> We can't send our players to Blender. And yeah, you've done it yourself, but what about 12-year-old Timmy?
<mrout> I did it when I was 12.
<mrout> Or around that age anyway. Yeah, about 12.
<ChemicalRascal> It sounds like you had far more computer skills than the average 12 year old.
<Wolfy87> We are aiming at programmers with the DCPU remember.
<mrout> It doesn't require computer skills. Just clicking on the vertex and moving the giant red, green and blue arrows.
<Wolfy87> Think of the fan base 0x10c.
<mrout> We aren't even aiming for a general audience, exactly.
<ChemicalRascal> Wolfy87: Part of the player base will be coders, yes. The other bunch will be running software the former have made
<mrout> Timmy can still play the game. But much like he doesn't know how to hack at the OS at the base level, he doesn't know how to make really base level customisations to his ship.
<Wolfy87> We don't need to pander to the masses to earn money. We are going for a niche.
<mrout> And guess what? he'll never notice that either.
<mrout> I bet nobody will say "Why aren't ships voxels so I can edit them?"
<ChemicalRascal> Apart from everyone who is expecting voxels and that level of in-game customisability.
<mrout> Why would they expect voxels if they haven't been told it has voxels, and we haven't advertised it as having voxels?
<Wolfy87> Is anybody expecting anything like that?
<Wolfy87> I thought ASM was the main thing.
<mrout> In the end, I seriously doubt many people would customise their ship at that level anyway.
<Wolfy87> I for one, would just like to keep my ship simple and play with code.
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, but sending those who do want to into Blender is not okay.
<mrout> Why is that not okay?
<mrout> Do we need to have an in-game way to create new mods as well? In-game hardware device design for the DCPU?
<mrout> At some point we need to say "Customising at that level isn't within the scope of the game, you'll need to do that outside the game"
<ChemicalRascal> There's a difference between entirely new content and ship design.
<mrout> No, because it's entirely new content to be customising at that level.
<ChemicalRascal> And I want that level of customisation to be within the scope of the game.
<mrout> To be creating content at that level is like creating a new class in D&D.
<ChemicalRascal> To take a notch out of a wing so you can put a gun in it is like creating a new class?
<mrout> They say "If you want to make a new class or new spells, have a look at how other classes and spells are designed"
<ChemicalRascal> Deciding you want to wire your ship differently is like that?
<mrout> ChemicalRascal: Who says you need to take a notch out of a wing to put a gun in it?
<mrout> Why would you need to? Just put the gun there.
<ChemicalRascal> Like, literally, if I want a wire to go through a wall at point A instead of point B, I shouldn't have to go to Blender.
<ChemicalRascal> If you want the thing to look decent, you know, maybe sit in a little well as guns are oft to do.
<ChemicalRascal> Or gun barrells.
<mrout> Lol what are you talking about? Why would rewiring your ship require blender?
<mrout> Why wouldn't ships with gun mounts be available?
<ChemicalRascal> Because apparently, I can't alter my ship geometry in the game.
<mrout> Who said that?
<ChemicalRascal> In terms of re-wiring.
<ChemicalRascal> In terms of being able to kick a hole in the wall.
<ChemicalRascal> In terms of being able to remove a segment of a wing.
<ChemicalRascal> Why the heck shouldn't a player be able to do that in-game?
<mrout> You don't need to edit the damn model to be able to put a wire through the wall
<mrout> You don't need to edit the damn model to put a gun there.
<ChemicalRascal> You sure do if you want it to look decent. The latter especially.
<mrout> No, you don't. Because wings with gun mounts will be in the game already.
<ChemicalRascal> Because we'll now be restricting gun placement to mounts?
<ChemicalRascal> Why shouldn't I be able to arbitarily decide where I want to put a gun?
<mrout> You can!
<ChemicalRascal> This is my point, though.
<mrout> You put the gun where you want along the wing.
<ChemicalRascal> I should be able to take *any* wing. And modify it in *any* way. *Inside* the game.
<ChemicalRascal> Because that's the level of self-expression and creativity that players are gonna want!
<mrout> sm,./ zxcvzxc dfgdfhafsfaduofhzsdbhk. zvfbser vsdaukvfawejkvcsd
<ChemicalRascal> Maybe not you, but sure as hell me!
<mrout> YOU CAN PUT A GUN ANYWHERE ON A WING WITHOUT EDITING THE MODEL.
<Wolfy87> Calm it, you two. There's two conflicting ideas going on here.
<mrout> YOUR WINGS CAN ALSO BE CURVED.
<Wolfy87> You will never come to a conclusion.
<ChemicalRascal> Wolfy87: You're probably right.
<mrout> Getting worked up. Sorry.
<ChemicalRascal> mrout, sorry if I'm... yeah, sorry about that.
<mrout> Anyway, you don't need to edit the model just to place things on or intersecting it.
<Wolfy87> Okay. Seems to me like you want models to run like a traditional game? Right? So a wing is a wing and you attach it in some way?
<mrout> When I first looked at Forza, I thought "All those decals are premade. How could anyone make anything creative with them?"
<mrout> But fuck, just google and you'll see the range of designs people have made.
<mrout> I mean.. ffs http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3776/jokerwip002.jpg
<ChemicalRascal> Most of those designs are actually imported from outside the game, to my knowledge.
<Wolfy87> So do you suggest composing a whole out of small, pre-defined, parts?
<mrout> You can't import decals from outside of the game, afaik.
<ChemicalRascal> mrout: Hang on, I've think I've seen a tutorial somewhere. A moment.
<mrout> Wolfy87: Pre-defined parts, yeah. Parts you can certainly scale and skew and rotate.
<Wolfy87> Seems like an interesting middle ground between 100% control and a box with a wing selection.
<Wolfy87> I also agree with ChemicalRascal though. If we wanted wiring etc, it might be hard to facilitate with any kind of pre-defined part.
<Wolfy87> Some things will work, some won't.
<Wolfy87> The bottom line is: We are running an open world, where the player can build their ship from a malleable material, or by combining lots of pre-defined constructs in interesting ways.
<mrout> I'm not sure why you'd say that. Put a panel on one section of wall, put another panel on another bit of wall, link them somehow (give them the same number or something - not really important how), done.
<Wolfy87> Yes, so we can find other solutions. If it was full voxels it might work in a different way.
<Wolfy87> We can do pretty much anything, anyhow.
<Wolfy87> We just have to decide on something doable that is also fun or interesting to use and work with.
<mrout> ChemicalRascal: right?
<mrout> it's gotta be feasible, it's gotta be customisable.
<Wolfy87> I'm really going to have to go soon though. It's 00:33 and I'm out all day tomorrow with an early start running around.
<ChemicalRascal> Ah, blast. Sorry, guys, I need to go grab a shower and a communal breakfast. I'll be back in maybe twoish hours, maybe one...
<ChemicalRascal> Ah, darn.
<ChemicalRascal> mrout: Yeah, that's true. Feasibility and customisability.
<Wolfy87> At least we seem to have made *some* headway on the major points.
<Wolfy87> Well, a lot of headway really.
<mrout> Yeah, definitely.
<mrout> One last little bit of wrapup:
<mrout> Can we agree on some general design principles?
<ChemicalRascal> Sure, sure.
<mrout> * Don't take away control from the player without good reason
<mrout> * Don't make the game easy simply to attract players, but don't make the game simply to drive them away
<ChemicalRascal> Of course.
<mrout> *don't make the game hard to simply drive them away
<Wolfy87> Definitely. To the second. And I guess we have to keep things within reason, yes.
<mrout> Thirdly, * The core of the game is the DCPU-16.
<ChemicalRascal> I mean, I think the sweet spot on that is going to differ between members, but there's a comprimise to be found.
<ChemicalRascal> And yes, that's absolutley core, certainly mechanic wise.
<Wolfy87> And as always, it's still in development. And mods. Nothing is set in stone.
<Wolfy87> We can tweak as we go along.
<mrout> I'm not going to make it a bullet point, but we really need to avoid design by committee syndrome where nobody happy with anything, because it's all compromise.
<Wolfy87> Yep. It seems to work well with these small groups. In my opinion.
<mrout> Lastly, * Moddability is a core concern. Nothing should be hardcoded.
<ChemicalRascal> ('cept space. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find out that you guys changed it to a pony simulator.)
<ChemicalRascal> Yeah, we need some sort of way to deal with that.
<mrout> At the same time, it's not a general purpose engine.
<Wolfy87> mrout: If we are using the same API on the engine (or similar) that will definitely be the case.
<Wolfy87> 0x10PONY is in motion.
<mrout> It doesn't need to be a general purpose. you could call it a general purpose space simulation and exploration game engine. You can mod it to make just about any sort of space simulation and exploration game, but not 0xPony.
<Wolfy87> I'll make a copy of this chat to be safe, but I have to go. I have a /loooong/ day ahead of me tomorrow.
<mrout> Wolfy87: good idea
<mrout> stay in channel
<Wolfy87> I'm on a laptop. I can't really leave it running.
<ChemicalRascal> I best be similarlly off for a short while, get me some soap.
<ChemicalRascal> 'sokay, I'm logging too.